All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:21
July 26, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, hang on here a minute again, folks.
Lady Raving Show Prep.
Greetings, welcome back, Rush Limbos, serving humanity simply by showing up.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, humiliation, torture, doom and gloom, the slow housing market, and even the good times.
We are here at 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
We've been getting some complaints in the email from some of you that the callers today on this program have been dumber than usual.
That's what they said, dumber than usual.
I just totally, I just think that's, you know, somebody stirring it up out there because I really don't think that that's the case.
But you have to understand here, folks, we're just getting all sides in on these issues that come up.
All right.
From Allentown, Pennsylvania, we own Allentown, by the way, a federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania's tough anti-immigration law, which has been emulated by cities around the country.
The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs.
Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
U.S. District Judge James Mundley declared it unconstitutional Thursday and voided it based on evidence and testimony from a nine-day trial held in March.
The city of Hazelton will almost certainly appeal.
The Republican mayor there pushed for the laws last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting.
Mayor Lou Barletta argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime, and gangs to the city of more than 30,000, overwhelming the cops and the screws.
Immigrant groups sued, saying that the laws usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration and deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process and violate state, blah, This city is 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia.
Estimates its population increased by more than 10,000.
Between 2000 and 2006, testimony during the trial put the city's illegal immigrant population between 1,500 and 3,400.
So the federal judges voided the law, tough anti-immigration law in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
There's other immigration news in the stack today.
From the LA Times early this morning, GOP border bill fails in the Senate.
Lawmakers clashed anew over Immigration Wednesday as Senate Republicans pushed to introduce far-reaching new enforcement measures, and California senators led an impassioned plea to allow in more foreign agricultural workers.
The extended exchanges, often tart, sometimes angry, came during debate on the Homeland Security spending bill, creating new fault lines and deep.
By the way, I got to mention this to you.
I was just back in Snertley's office, and he's got C-SPAN 2 on in there, and the Senate was debating something.
I don't know what they're debating, but there's an amendment.
Mary Landrew has offered an amendment saying that the primary goal of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, this is, she wants this as an amendment to some bill.
The primary goal, primary goal of U.S. counterterrorism efforts is to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
What a pea-brained idea.
Let's say we do.
I happen to think the guy's pushing up daisies anyway, but let's say we capture him or kill him.
Is that going to end the war on tech?
That's the primary effort?
Was the primary effort in World War II to kill Hitler?
If so, folks, we failed.
Now, what the thing in the Senate about the specific thing that they were all upset about yesterday was a narrowly focused measure that included funds for 700 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 23,000 border patrol agents, 105 ground-based radar sensors, and four unmanned planes.
So the idea here was, okay, this comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007 went down to defeat.
And so everybody said, okay, let's do this.
Why do it comprehensive?
Let's go back and let's do some specific things.
The American people want border security, so let's do it.
Democrats wanted no part of this.
The Democrats stopped this border agreement measure in the Senate.
It was narrowly focused, and that's what they didn't like about it.
The original enforcement amendment was the brainchild of Senator Lindsey Gramnesty, one of the original sponsors of the Senate immigration bill.
And during that debate, he argued that the only way to successfully overhaul immigration laws was to attack all aspects of the problem at the same time.
But on Wednesday, Graham said that the comprehensive approach had failed.
Just because it failed doesn't mean the problems posed by illegal immigration have gone away.
We're now moving to Plan B, which was border security, the fence, and the vehicle barriers.
His statement drew a tough rebuttal from one of Gramnesty's former allies, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy said this amendment does nothing to secure our nation and everything to tear it apart.
Okay, that's this morning's L.A. Times.
From the, what is this?
Well, I don't know.
It's either Reuters or the Associated Press.
Is it Wasn't Times?
Eager to demonstrate, yeah, it might be, eager to demonstrate to a skeptical public that Congress is determined to tackle illegal immigration.
The Senate today added $3 billion to a Homeland Security spending bill to pay for thousands more border agents, 700 miles of border fencing, sophisticated technology, blah, The action marked a surprising reversal from Wednesday when it appeared the extra border security funding would fall victim to partisan disagreements.
But Dingy Harry, in a highly unusual floor speech, admitted today that he'd thrown a little tantrum the night before when he pulled the $3 billion amendment after an objection by Senator Cornyn.
And we, I think, well, we've got the story on that in the stack.
They were going along just fine, and then Dingy Harry did insult Cornyn, and that led to contra attempts, so forth and so on.
But now they've added $3 billion for border security.
So whatever happened last night apparently has been overcome.
This is not the final vote here.
This is they just got an amendment here to the Homeland Security Bill, and that's yet to be voted on in its entirety, in its entirety, because the Washington Times from yesterday said the Senate Democrats yesterday defeated a Republican effort to authorize $3 billion to new border security and immigration enforcement instead.
Democrats proposed a new agriculture workers program to bring in hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and grant legal status to illegal aliens now working in the field.
So what's happening here, the Democrats are trying to do exactly what the comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007 wanted to do, was grant amnesty right off the bat.
But this time they said, well, we'll just do it.
We'll just do it to agriculture workers.
We'll start off small.
And that didn't fly.
So the border security apparently has now been added to the bill.
And there's this: U.S. business is bracing for a possible major crackdown on illegal foreign workers as the government seeks to give immigration authorities more power to punish companies hiring undocumented workers.
President Bush's administration has proposed a federal regulation that unions warn could lead to mass firings nationwide by companies seeking to avoid prosecutions and fines.
So this story goes on to detail how businesses are very much upset, very worried about the crackdown on illegal foreign workers and so forth.
They might have to obey the law.
What was this?
Also, this town in Connecticut.
And I'm having a metal block on the name of the town in Connecticut.
But they, when I was in New Haven, that's right, where Yale is, they passed this law saying any illegal immigrant, come on in.
They're going to be fine and dandy here with us, was the essence of it.
I said, well, that's cool.
We need to really applaud the people of New Haven and send a memo out to every illegal immigrant.
Go to New Haven.
They want you.
And we need to applaud and congratulate the taxpayers of New Haven for agreeing to support all of this.
Quick timeout.
Don't go away.
All right.
Here's another definitive story on the border security fight.
It does seem, ladies and gentlemen, as though Dingy Harry blinked a little bit here.
Senate Democrats and Republicans came together Thursday to devote an additional $3 billion to gaining control over the border in Mexico, putting Congress on a path to override President Bush's promised veto of a $38 billion Homeland Security funding bill.
The deal was approved by an overwhelming 89 to 1 vote.
It resurrects a GOP plan launched Wednesday to pass some of the most popular elements of Bush's failed immigration bill, including money for additional border agents and fencing along the southern border.
The Democrats liked the money, but they objected to Republican proposals that allowed law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status and cracking down on those who overstay their visits.
Dingy Harry and Senator John Cornyn of Texas resolved their differences overnight, announced agreement this morning.
Cornyn won a promise to have some of the money used to go after immigrants who had entered the U.S. legally but had overstayed their visas.
Reed had apparently thought earlier that Cornyn wanted harsher language.
I was wrong.
Senator Cornyn was right.
Acknowledged a sheepish dingy Harry.
So, well, the man running the country, that's me, you know it and I know it wins again.
You know, folks, I'm sitting here.
I have an op-ed piece from the New York Times today by Gene Edwards Smith, J-E-A-N Edward Smith, author most recently of the book FDR.
And it's just amazing the agenda items that come slithering out of the shadows when the Democrats and the Liberals believe they have the chance to win a presidential election.
When a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, she begins, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics.
If the Roberts Court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the political thicket, it may require a political solution to set it straight.
The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as arbiter of all national issues.
I can't believe a liberal saying that.
As Chief Justice John Marshall made clear in Marvary versus Madison, the court's authority extends only to legal issues.
Yeah, maybe.
Anyway, here's the bottom line of this.
This piece is entitled Stacking the Court.
And her suggestion, or his suggestion.
I don't know.
I never heard of this person, Gene Edward Smith.
He got a female first name and a male middle name.
So I have no clue here what the gender is.
John Edwards probably knows this person, but I don't.
But the idea here, stack the court.
They say there's no reason we only have to have nine.
We can have 11 justices.
A Democrat president could add two more justices, and I'm going to just do it.
You can have 11.
That way we could overwrite this ideological nature of the court.
As though the libs are not ideological, this is the thing that amazes me.
They think that they're not ideological.
They're just what is.
It's now that there's the Roberts Court, why it's adopted a manifestly ideological agenda.
She says, if the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democrat president and Congress could provide a corrective.
It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two.
Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt, but Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant.
So here they are.
They're slithering out of the woodwork, folks, and they're telling us exactly who they are.
They're so brimming with confidence that they're going to win the next election that they're not even worried here about hiding behind camouflage or masks anymore.
They're telling us who they are.
And after they get done reinstituting the fairness doctrine, Gene Edward Smith advocates in today's times a little Supreme Court packing.
And he, she should know all about it because there's an expert on FDR.
But really, I think what's entertaining about this, it's no, no, no.
FDR was packing.
Well, because the Democrats will run both houses.
Democrats, well, the times are different now because the libs are desperate.
Libs are desperate.
The court is everything to them.
Anyway, I don't care whether it would work or not.
That's not the point of the discussion here.
It's that they're coming out of the woodwork and saying this is what they want to do.
Listen up.
They will do whatever they have to do to rid this country of any vestige of conservatism.
This is why I get so frustrated when I listen to Republicans that want to make halfway deals with these people and go along with us.
Like the minimum wage, gave them their 70 cents an hour.
They had their big bash yesterday.
Not enough.
Coming back for more.
You can't compromise these people.
They have to be.
I mean, in a political sense here, they have to be defeated.
Here's Jeff in Prospect Park, New Jersey.
Welcome, sir.
I'm glad you held on.
And good afternoon, Rosh.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you.
I got one question for you.
With all the investigations from Congress Democrats, Schumer and Conyer and et al.
With all the endless subpoenas and endless witch hunt, are they going to jump the shark eventually, or have they already?
Well, that's a good question.
I think at some point they are going to jump the shark.
I don't know if they have.
Now, it's summertime, vacation.
I don't know how many people are paying real attention to all this, but I do think the congressional approval numbers indicate that some people are fed up with it, or a lot of people are.
And so that's the Supreme Court story.
It's why I'm getting it out beyond the pages of the New York Times.
I think they have to jump the shark at some point if they keep this up, because this is not a liberal country.
By the way, stock market is down about 400 points right now because of some housing news and other things.
And of course, the drive-bys cannot wait to do stories on it tonight.
Experts will be brought in.
What's wrong?
What's happening to the economy?
How is Bush destroying it today?
They didn't say a word about the market when it got up to 14,000.
They ignored it.
They ignored it when it was at 13,500.
They ignored it when it was 13.
They didn't care a whit about it.
And of course, when they did comment on it, it was to say, well, that's good for Wall Street, but it's horrible for Main Street.
The little guy is not helped by this.
But now they can't wait.
They're already doing promos for their nighttime programs on focusing on what's happening in the stock market, what goes wrong, when in fact the stock market has nearly doubled in what?
Five years?
From $7,200 over $14,000, this little blip, it'll happen.
It'll get back up.
They're hoping that this becomes a big crash.
The drive-bys are hoping that this just bottoms out.
And that's why they're going to focus on it now so they can get you worried about it and pull you out of the market, too.
Here is Jim in Dallas, Georgia.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Good, sir.
I actually have an observation, Bernice.
That sweet lady from the last hour reminded me of an observation I've had for years.
She mentioned this Bruce guy from the Reagan administration to add credibility to the impeachment movement.
And it never ceases to amaze me that liberals quote Republicans to add credibility to their argument all the time, but it never happens the other way.
When's the last time a Republican said, you know, quoted Lanny Davis or Madeleine Albright or Hillary in order to increase their credibility of their point?
That just never happened.
Well, it does.
Sometimes it does.
If Senator McCain goes on television every night and rips George Bush, they love him.
Well, Republicans frequently oppose or take another argument, another side from this administration, but I just can't think of a single time where they've quoted a liberal in order to increase the credibility of their argument.
Well, I can't give you specific examples, but I know I've done it.
There have been, and it doesn't happen much, but there have been instances where Lieberman on the floor of the Senate chastising Clinton for his morality, the lack of what he was damaged.
He still didn't vote for impeachment, but he did a very public turn against Clinton.
Didn't please Clinton at all.
Doesn't happen much.
I mean, you're exactly right.
But anyway, I appreciate the call out there, Jim.
Way to be brief.
Because of the constraints of time, we have to take a quick timeout.
And back to the phones quickly.
We've got a global warming update coming as well.
Shannon in Galesburg, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thank you, Rush.
I'm very happy that you took my call.
I'm beating a dead horse here, but I want to go back to the Michael Vick situation and comment very quickly on what Sports Illustrated is saying.
As sad as it is, I truly do believe that in the long run, this is going to end up being worse for the city of Atlanta than what Chris Benoit did, not because what Michael Vick did was actually worse.
Chris Benoit murdered a child for the love of God.
This is the most heinous thing that anybody can do in my mind.
But the fact is, Vick has been one of the primary marketing faces of the NFL for the last several years, and the NFL is considerably larger of a popular organization than World Wrestling Entertainment ever could be.
And even though what he does, in my mind, pales in comparison, his media exposure is actually going to end up having more of a negative effect in the city of Atlanta than what Chris Benoit did.
And that makes me sick.
All right, now, define the negative impact, the manifestations of the negative impact in the city of Atlanta.
Are the people going to be jumping off bridges and roads?
Are they going to be terribly distressed?
The Falcons are going to suffer because of this, both at the box office, at the gate, and in the standings.
What do you mean?
I think just kind of an abandonment of the Falcons guilt by association.
And honestly, it would not surprise me if the average citizen of Atlanta ends up spending more time discussing the dogfighting scandal than the double murder suicide.
It's just going to have more of a cultural impact.
I understand that, actually.
The Falcons are a much bigger entity than where Chris Benoit worked.
Yeah, and I don't think it's that.
I think Vic was the face of the Falcons.
Yes, exactly.
And a much larger cultural icon than a professional wrestler could ever hope to become.
And if Benoit had been guilty of a dogfighting ring instead of the crime that he committed, it probably would have been a blip on the media radar.
It probably wouldn't have gotten any coverage whatsoever.
So, I mean, and the fact that it was so much more massive a crime in terms of scale got it, you know, considerable media attention.
But even though it was so heinous, the fact that the organization he was a part of was much lower on the radar makes this a bigger deal in the media.
And that is sickening.
But I think that more than a devaluation of human life is what's responsible for it.
Well, you maybe have a point.
Well, thank you, Rush.
It is an honor to hear that coming out of your mouth.
You may have a point in terms of why the people of Atlanta are so, well, that's another thing.
One thing that we have to say here.
Sports Illustrated, a bunch of libs from top to bottom.
Trust me on this.
I know them.
I know of them.
Number two, they go to Atlanta and they go to this so-called the hub of where all these sports and political and so-forth figures hang out.
Manuels, I don't been to Atlanta some.
I don't know about Manuels.
But in this whole story, they found two people to say that this is worse than Ray Lewis, worse than Chris Benoit.
Two people.
It makes me wonder, okay, how many people who disagreed with this premise did they leave out of the story?
So basically, they have two people, maybe three in this story, speaking for all of Atlanta.
It's sort of like the way the drive-bys cover a meeting of the Feminazis.
You know, the NAGs, the National Association of Gals.
29 or 30 of them show up, and it's the minds of all women were there.
And the opinions and emotions of all women were discussed and reflected.
Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.
Got to get to the global warming stack here.
I wasn't through introing here, so this can't be quiet.
This can't be quilm.
And that's our buddy Paul Shanklin as former Vice President Al Gore.
And what a horrible world.
All right, here we go.
First item in the global warming stack today is a column in the Australian Herald Sun.
It's by Andrew Bolt, and he's talking here about how convenient for the new Prime Minister of Great Britain, Gordon Brown, newly installed.
And, whoa, how handy.
All these floods over there.
Why?
He can blame global warming.
How handy it is for the battling politician.
Big Britain's new and nervous Prime Minister Gordon Brown, thousands of British houses drowning in floodwaters, soggy citizens ready to make somebody pay.
These furious voters could, for instance, ask their politicians why they let so many houses be built on old floodplains.
They might demand to know why the country's environment agency was so slack in maintaining flood defenses.
And they certainly are complaining about the government's slow rescue efforts.
Have we been here before?
Hurricane Katrina.
So how does Gordon Brown escape?
Well, he blames global warming.
Obviously, he says, like every advanced industrial country, we're coming to terms with some of the issues surrounding climate change.
Brilliant.
From potential scapegoat to noble profit, been done before.
Australian premiers blame global warming rather than admit they'd failed to build new dams over the past 20 years to water their growing cities.
But few have been quite so brazen as Brown or drawn attention so clumsily to a rather big problem with the computer models on which so much global warming theory is based.
Here's the problem.
You see, the weather in Great Britain right now isn't behaving as those models predict.
For a start, Britain should be baking.
The models say that global warming is happening.
It should be baking rather than drowning.
All the models actually forecast not summer floods in Britain, but summers ever drier.
Hear it from the warming sprukers at Britain's Hadley Center who warned winters will become wetter and summers become drier across all of the UK.
But which global warming preacher can resist blaming any bit of wild weather on man and his gases?
Hurricane Katrina, which helped to drown New Orleans in 2005?
For Al Gore, it was so emblematic of global warming, he stuck it on the poster for his movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Yet the weather just refuses to behave as the activist pet global warming models insist.
You see the problem, don't you?
That's not an explanation to excite an activist or excuse a politician who's in deep water.
You got to blame something.
Blame the jet stream that remains stuck over Britain when normally it's pushed back over Scotland by winds from the Azores.
We discussed this yesterday, or a couple days, the jet stream is just further south than it should be.
The models didn't predict any of this, and we can't move it up.
They don't know how to move the jet stream up.
By the way, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, I had a story for you that the temperature here where we live in South Florida is cooler than normal.
Whereas in other parts of Florida, the temperatures are rising, although not all parts of Florida, but it's been cool here.
It's cool in northeast again here today.
It's all over the place.
Temperatures are wacky, and they're cooler than they should be.
And I took credit for this yesterday by highlighting the huge carbon footprint that I am making on purpose to help put pollutants into the air because we know that when nature does that, we cool the climate.
So I have a pretty large estate, and I'm running all the things that I have in it.
I'm running a pool cooler 24 hours a day, the thermostat 68 degrees in every room and every house.
Lights are on a lot.
I even air-conditioned my garages, folks.
Absolutely.
I'm not about to have to take a shower, get dressed, and walk out for dinner at night, get into a sweaty, hot garage, a sweaty, hot, besides, I got to protect my cars.
So yes, I'm a big carbon footprint.
And a friend sends me a note, says, I don't know why.
It never occurred to me before, but you, Rush Limbaugh, are actually doing more to support alternative energy sources than the vast majority of Americans.
Your disproportionate use of energy through supply and demand helps to push prices higher, which then makes alternative sources of energy more competitive in the marketplace.
So I am doing the Lord's work, even though, and while I am satisfying myself, do you understand this, Mr. Snirdley?
Did we lose you here?
Because I'm using all this pest, driving the price up.
No, I'm placing a huge demand on the existing supply, supply and demand.
My demand is extraordinarily high compared to the average Floridian.
So I'm using their supply, demand.
The price is going up, which makes alternative fuels look even more attractive.
I'm helping.
Oh, but wait.
Sorry.
Take it back from livescience.com, Renewable Energy Not Green.
Renewable energy could wreck the environment, according to a study that examined how much land it would take to generate the renewable resources that would make a difference in the global energy system.
The results of this survey published in the current issue of the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy, and Ecology paint a grim picture for the environment.
For example, according to the study, in order to meet the 2005 electricity demand for the U.S., an area the size of Texas would need to be covered with wind structures running around the clock to extract, store, and transport the energy.
New York City would require the entire area of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.
It's a hoax as well as renewable energy garbage.
Oh, by the way, Peru, 70 children have died during a spell of freezing weather in the Andean regions, a cold snap that is unheard of.
70 children died.
Big story also out of Nevada, Nevada among the states with the most dramatic increase in average temperatures in the last 30 years, according to a new study that examines the impact of global warming across the country.
So what did I do?
I went to the National Weather Service, and I got a little bar graph here of average Las Vegas maximum temperature by decade.
And guess what?
The 1940s featured the highest average temperature for Las Vegas in the last whatever, well, from the 90s through the 40s, the 40s and 50s were higher than the 80s and 90s.
Average temperature in Las Vegas.
Keep in mind, folks, it's all BS out there on this global warming business.
It's wild guests.
It's a political issue.
It's a religion.
It's a hoax.
Don't believe any of the fear-mongering.
We'll be back.
I left one story out of the global warming report accidentally.
From the Los Angeles Times, you take public transportation to work.
You use energy-saving light bulbs.
You turn off the air conditioner when you're not home.
By the way, I don't do that either.
Air conditioners stay home all the time.
Too much stuff in there to protect.
I'm not going to let the humidity down here destroy it.
Same thing with the garages.
I do turn off the pool cooler when I'm not around.
I do do that.
You got to have the thing on.
But besides that, the federal government will still come to your aid if you still feel guilty that you are not doing enough.
For years, companies have been allowed to compensate for greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon offsets or pollution credits.
These are vouchers for investment in alternative energy sources, tree planting, and other scams.
My word, not the L.A. Times.
Now the idea is spreading to individuals with the Forest Service's announcement yesterday that it will be the first federal agency to offer personal carbon offsets through an initiative called the Carbon Capital Fund.
Yeah, we came up with the idea because everybody is looking at what they can do in terms of climate change, said the president of the National Forest Foundation, nonprofit partner, the Forest Service.
Whenever you read non-profit, think liberal nine times out of ten, the money goes to a restricted fund for projects on national forests.
So if you had any doubt that this whole thing's a scam, now the feds want to take your money in the process.
This is a voluntary tax that they hope that you will come up with.
Bipartisan Battleground Poll, 57% of Americans approve of George W. Bush as a person.
Question was, whether you approve or disapprove of the way he's handling his gig.
What is your impression of George W. Bush as a person?
57% approve, 35% disapprove.
And in Knoxville, Tennessee, nice to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's a privilege to talk to you.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I have a question regarding the leader of the Senate, Harry Reid.
Yes.
One thing I've noticed about him, and I noticed it yesterday when you were playing the clips of him at the minimum wage rally or whatever, and he got up and spoke.
And he was as excited as I've ever heard him, but yet he still kind of came across as this very kind of meek, mild-mannered guy, which he usually is.
And his predecessor, Tom Dashel, seems to me was kind of cut from the same mold.
In other words, you know, I guess my question to you is, do you think there's a concerted effort on the part of the Democratic Party to put forth someone who has that persona, you know, kind of a Wally Cox, Mr. Rogers kind of impression that they make to diffuse the message or to soften the message?
Yes, I think that's part of strategy.
But you have to understand how these guys end up being chosen leader.
And it's not because of that.
They are chosen leader because they are the most partisan people in the Senate.
Dashel was the most partisan Democrat in his day.
George Mitchell was the most partisan man in Washington during his day, but he's mild-mannered and soft-spoken and very intellectually competent.
Dashel, I mean, that was a great example.
And Dingy Harry is the same way.
I think it's a studied.
I bet those guys yell plenty when they're behind closed doors and they speak up plenty.
But in public, yeah, you're right.
But they are chosen.
Because they are the most partisan people in the Senate that will take the gig.
All right, I'm going to try.
This is not fair.
I don't have time.
I wanted to.
We've got a woman from Fremont, California.
Get her number.
See if she'll let us call back to me because she wants to raise the intellect, the average intellect of the callers today, because I guess she claims to be smart.
Is that the thing?
And she wants to agree with me about a couple of things.
So, Kathy, if you'll be patient, because there just wasn't enough time to get you in here for our final busy broadcast segment, which is now over.
Tomorrow's Open Line Friday.
Can't wait.
Ladies and gentlemen, be here eager, revved up, ready to go.
▲
Export Selection